Creator of Yoon-Suin and other materials. Propounding my half-baked ideas on role playing games. Jotting down and elaborating on ideas for campaigns, missions and adventures. Talking about general industry-related matters. Putting a new twist on gaming.

Wednesday, 2 May 2018

The Death of the Archetype and the Character as Brand

Film is often said to be a "literalising medium" and the modern Hollywood machine in particular has no respect for expressionism, symbolism, or the surreal. Nowhere is this more evident than in the all-powerful juggernaut that is the Origin Story: it's not enough for a popular character - be it Wolverine, Superman, Batman, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Captain Kirk, Spock, Malificent, etc. - to simply stand fully-formed, larger-than-life, as you find him; no, there has to be a cultural product detailing where he came from. Not even dream-characters in Alice in Wonderland are safe: even the Mad Hatter gets an Origin Story of sorts nowadays, because he isn't allowed to simply exist - the logic of film demands he be from somewhere and that we understand why he is mad.

It isn't hard to understand why this is: a character like Han Solo is no longer just the roguish smuggler who everybody prefers to Luke. He's a brand in his own right, or is readily commodified as such, and why should an opportunity to spin him into a money-maker be spurned? The easiest way of doing that is by making a film providing the definitive explanation as to where he came from: nerds will queue in droves to see it and non-nerds know enough about Han Solo to want to find out. Never mind that the power of a character like Han Solo comes from the fact that he is not so much a character as an archetype, and that's the point (if you listen to and believe George Lucas, it was even his point when he wrote the original films). No, he must be rendered prosaic so he can be better monetized.

What do we lose from this? Not a great deal, I suppose, but we lose something: the notion that fiction actually has primordial, intuitive significance that gets at the structures underlying our common humanity and which can't be reduced to just words on a page or images on a film. Han Solo as a human being, who was a child once and who is the way he is because he never learned to love/became embittered by a personal tragedy/whatever the Origin Story is, will be a less dramatically compelling one than Han Solo who simply is. The attempt to make him seem a more realistic and plausible character will deprive him of his potential to mean something else.

Well, there are origin stories and then there are origin stories. I think having a tradition about where a character came from (e.g., Han Solo is a smuggler from Corellia or whatever) is different from having a complete story about it in its own right.

I'd argue that both Batman and Superman (as well as Spider-Man) are all characters whose origins ADD to their archetypal nature in some way. For Batman, the tragedy of his parent dying is what lead him down the path of becoming less of a man and more like this force of nature which strike fear into the hearts of criminals.

Superman's origins as the 'Last Son of Krypton' and the mythology built around it imbue him with this near-mythical quality that has helped him be this modern-day Herakles or Gilgamesh. In fact, this origin is so simple and clear cut in what it is that All Star Superman sums it up in four panels.

As for Spider-Man I'd argue he is a bit less archetypal but that's because Spider-Man (and to an extent all Marvel heroes) were meant to be more 'people' and human. However, even his origin has a core thematic idea which is summed up in the now-famous 'With great powers come great responsibilities'.

I think this is just a side-effect of the materialist perspective that most members of our society believe in, whether directly or indirectly. To imply anything has a transcendent quality would not fit this worldview, so it is ignored.

Either that, or Hollywood is just too afraid to actually experiment, so they are just coasting off an established brand, in the hope of making more money.

It’s important to note that most of the Arthurian legend is this sort of backfilling—and so is nearly all of Christian apocrypha. A big chunk of my research is on the Legend of the Wood of the Cross ... which is a classic origin story!

That's interesting, but don't you think there is a slight but important difference between tales shared by people about the backstory of say, King Arthur or a saint, and an "official origin story" like the new Han Solo movie?

Lots of good points made above. This is a huge problem with the phenomenon of “fandom” and one of the reasons I try to steer clear. The demand for MORE of the thing they love inevitably, sooner or later, kills whatever spark made it appealing. It’s not just origins stories (although these are some of the worst offenders): it can be prequels of any kind, as well as sequels, other stories set in the same universe, etc. It can be done better (by EXPANDING the number of unfilled gaps in the world) or worse (by filling in each and every gap from the original with answers and encyclopedia entries, see “the Clone Wars” as it evolved from a single offhand comment from Ben Kenobi to whatever it is in the franchise today). But best not to do it at all. Artists should leave the audience hungry. But hungry is exactly what fans refuse to be, and capitalism is always happy to keep feeding them.

I should have added that the implications for RPGs are pretty clear, and pretty well-addressed by the OSR-type philosophy that's on the rise. Rulings not rules, start with one hex and build as you go, etc.

This is one reason why I love Yoon-Suin: noism flat out say we should 'make it our own'. There is no line of extra Yoon-Suin book which flat out says what's out there, how it works and how we should play it.

I don't think it's really a demand to know these things by audiences. I suspect it's more like the easiest way to get more story out of a character. With an origin story, you can at least easily check a couple of boxes for things that have to happen without much effort, and then you just come up with some more stuff to fill the gaps and you have a script. Coming up with a new story after the last one has ended takes much more effort.

Someone mentioned mythology and comic book character above as older traditions in which origin stories feature prominently. I strongly suspect that most mythological origgin stories came about in much the same way as the trope of the comic book origina story: you start with a fully-formed character/demigod/whatever, you tell a few stories about their exploits, if the character proves popular you eventually get asked where he came from, where he got his magic lionskin and so forth, and you start telling origin stories to answer the questions.

In oral traditions, though (and in the semi-literate chaos of the comic book industry), consistency and canon are not a high priority, and characters often have multiple overlapping and contradictory origin stories. Hell, even humans have two different origin stories in the book of Genesis.

The impulse to reconcile and rationalize these stories into a single canonical religious narrative is carried out by later generations of literate systematizers, whether we're talking about medieval Catholic authorities or Star Wars fans.

This is the most articulate response I've seen yet to the people who whine about Snoke being "ruined" by his lack of an intricately-detailed backstory to explain all his methods and motivations. Cheers!

First, you must learn to avoid basic fallacies. Repeat after me: Actions taken still count in story terms even if I personally ignore them. The universe is based on reality, not on my perception. Snoke takes lots of actions! On-screen we see him going out of his way to give commands to his subordinates through holo- and/or astral projections; we see him speak with Rey and manipulate her body using the Force; we see him taunt Kylo. You are not allowed to discount these actions just because they're not as flashy as stabbing someone with a lightsaber or personally piloting a ship.

Next, you must learn object permanence. Repeat after me: A thing can exist even when I am not looking at it. The far side of the moon exists. History before my birth exists. The minds of people I have never met exist, and their thoughts that I am never aware of also exist. Snoke, in the sense that he is a sentient being, obviously has goals, plans, and motives, and "does things," even if I never manage to observe them.

(And bear in mind that the post above is about the functioning of archetypal characters. Snoke's function within the story isn't as an agent with goals etc.; his function is as an obstacle for the main characters to overcome. Since his goals, etc. aren't important to the story being told, the story isn't going to dwell on them any more than it's going to dwell on every burp, every trip to the bathroom, every minute of the night while the main character sleeps. It's going to go about its business, and we can infer them if we so desire.)

Third, you must learn about inference. Repeat after me: I can understand aspects of something unseen by paying attention to clues. This maxim will serve you well when you watch mysteries, thrillers, dramas, love stories, comedies, and other tales more subtle than Pew Pew In Space. It will also help you if you try to do Science. We can guess at Snoke's goals (control the galaxy, no?), plans (not least, provoking or bullying Kylo into a series of acts of evil in order to cement the hold of the Dark Side over him), and motives (something to do with the scarring?). What's more, we have far more solid clues demonstrating that Snoke is incredibly active as an engine of the story: He built the whole dang First Order. He corrupted Kylo Ren. He ordered/built and then rode in a massive space ship.

Ultimately, for those who can see the patterns, he is no "suckier" and no less consequential than the Emperor, his parallel in the original series. And as I recall, the Emperor performed his function in that series without falling apart for lack of the fleshing-out given to him in the prequels. So, you know.

Go forth and do good, padawan, with perhaps a little greater wisdom about how stories (and the real world?) work. ;D

I think that really is the problem: He is not an agent in the story. His goals and so on are not relevant to the story.

I am in agreement that we don't need to know his backstory or an explanation of his methods. The Emperor in Return of the Jedi doesn't have either and he is an amazing arch-villain.

Snoke is not an antagonist. He is not an agent in the story. But he sit's in the arch-villain's chair. And that's why people find him disapointing. The lack of backstory and explanation is not a real reason for that.

I haven't seen any of the new films except TFA (I don't intend to watch any more either) but my main criticisms of Snoke are that he has a crap name, looks like Gollum, and is just a stand-in for The Emperor.

Another way of looking at it would be that 'origin stories' is one of the most basic forms of narrative. A lot of the Bible is an origin story, most of the Homeric tales are origin stories, the same goes for many traditional myths, religious texts, fairy tales etc. Someone already mentioned superheroes. The narrative trope/structure of "how did [character] become a hero" is ancient and very common and very often entails an "... as we know him to be" given that familiarity with the character or at least the archetype is often assumed. In fact "archetype into character" is probably a very effective, albeit boring, structuralist way of summing up these stories.

The way I read you post, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, you're really gunning for all the current movies on "how the [pre-character] became the [character] that became the hero as we know him". Beyond mere Hollywood capitalism, which clearly is a major power here, I would speculate that this has to do with a still increasingly narrow understanding of the human being as an individual as opposed to a collective (or subjugated) agent. This is very much a product of the Enlightenment and of course not all together for the worse. More than than that, and probably much more interesting, I would argue that it has to do with nostalgia. Zoe Williams did a piece in the Guardian which I found interesting (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/20/nostalgia-political-poison-strictly-bake-off) though, with all due respect, I think the issue is more complicated than she writes it (i.e. Will & Grace and the Gillmore Girls coming back with clear feminist/LGBTQ+ agendas is hardly political poison).

Back to your question; what do we lose? I think most acutely we lose other stories being told. That Han Solo as character or archetype should suffer from an(other) origin story than the one he already had I find hard to agree with. We could just skip the new movie if we don't want to see it and even if we do watch it, it's not very hard treating the figures from the original movie(s) as separate to the newer ones. There is no hard canon; Han Solo is who you/I/anyone interpret him to be and archetypal characters are not necessarily more interesting pr. default - unless you are specifically trying to adapt or reuse the figure in a story of your own devising, which we very often do in rpgs...